Ukyo as my statement in the BTCT thread suggests I agree mostly that it should have been handled differently, though there are a few things to add:

Your statements mostly reflects your point of view as a shareholder that perceived a subjective loss of value. The terms of service of BTCT are pretty clear on contract breaches for securities:

Quote

If you are proven lying on your contract, your asset issuer information, or in any communication with the exchange, your asset will be frozen indefinitely, all assets you hold on the exchange will be frozen, and your asset will most likely be delisted....If found in violation of these rules, you will be given a warning and will have 7 days to come into compliance. If you do not comply your asset will be delisted.

I'm not sure, if you like to turn this into a discussion about if and what points of Labcoin's contract were breached and if burnside's reaction by posting a warning instead of freezing or delisting Labcoin was congruent with his own terms of service, but the baseline is pretty much this: what he did was more or less within his possible options of what he might do as an administator of BTCT and users should have been aware of this.

From a traders perspective there are always two sides: the ones who are buying and the ones who are selling. You can't favor one side by saying "it's unfair". Unfair to whom?

My personal opinion about Labcoin is mixed and I love to speculate on it as well as every rally or good news provided by Labcoin, but I wouldn't advice anyone to buy Labcoin shares, because I see this as a great and well managed company at the moment. I'm rather in favor of overdoing the "investor protecting" part to minimize that ratio of "people that are getting screwed" to those who are very well aware of the risks they are taking and missteps done by Labcoin.

I hope this warning is a wakeup-call for Labcoin and they improve on what they are doing, so that everyone will profit here and not only a fraction.

Edit: Meta: Please don't get me wrong, I'm also in favor of more warnings on BTCT in general (though not with any additional regulation or arbitrariness as Ukyo has lined out), because the risk of failure from the issuer is not the only ongoing risk, but also the rising level of attempted manipulation on the forums (both from bulls and bears) and related areas is alarming. Just to recap the last 20 hours: we had one guy saying he is Labcoin's new PR guy and he was posting pictures of hardware and only a few hours later a fake TheSwede75 appeared on IRC who has now registred this nickname on freenode and who successfuly made TheSeven believe it's actually him and possibly extracted valuable information based on that. And let's not forget that the topic of the last several pages is a discussion about "are the payments sent to Labcoin's Bitcoin address really from Labcoin or not".

It's about that. My math is based on my one B2 3-module avalon pulling down 0.33Btc/24h on BTCGuild, using the formula (BTC/h)/(0.33BTC/day/24h/day/82Gh/s)

The "Correct" way to do it would be to look at the BTCGuild PPS rate of 0.0000002053209458 BTC/share, calculate the number of shares per hour, multiply by 232 =~ 4.2 billion * 3600 second/hour to get the actual nonce rate, but... whatever. It's all going to be pretty inexact anyway.

I guess no more drama for a while. They seem to be hashing stably at 400Gh/s

Since ASICMiner is doing 33.59 TH/s, and ASICMiner's 400k shares are 1.8 at the moment, that means ASICMiner is worth 720,000 BTC.

Labcoin hashing 1/84th as quickly, giving it an "ASICMiner equivalent valuation" of 8,571 BTC, or a per-share value of 0.00085.

I'm obviously not saying they're equivalent by any means, just pointing out the price you'd currently pay for shares that would get the same dividends as ASICMiner, not counting ASICMiner hardware sales.

If they can get it up to 706Gh/s they could justify their current 0.0015Btc price, and would need 941Gh/s to justify a 0.002BTC price.

I guess no more drama for a while. They seem to be hashing stably at 400Gh/s

Since ASICMiner is doing 33.59 TH/s, and ASICMiner's 400k shares are 1.8 at the moment, that means ASICMiner is worth 720,000 BTC.

Labcoin hashing 1/84th as quickly, giving it an "ASICMiner equivalent valuation" of 8,571 BTC, or a per-share value of 0.00085.

I'm obviously not saying they're equivalent by any means, just pointing out the price you'd currently pay for shares that would get the same dividends as ASICMiner, not counting ASICMiner hardware sales.

If they can get it up to 706Gh/s they could justify their current 0.0015Btc price, and would need 941Gh/s to justify a 0.002BTC price.

If you are proven lying on your contract, your asset issuer information, or in any communication with the exchange, your asset will be frozen indefinitely, all assets you hold on the exchange will be frozen, and your asset will most likely be delisted....If found in violation of these rules, you will be given a warning and will have 7 days to come into compliance. If you do not comply your asset will be delisted.

Quote

If you are proven

I was not aware there was proof of anything? I apologize I must have missed something.

As to once proof is found, it says delisting. Nothing about warning users away without giving a factual reason.

Based on your quote either:A. The requirement half of this was not met.orB. The result was not carried out as mentioned.

Somehow something went wrong somewhere if this was to be invoked.I still do not see anything in there about "If there is lack of communications for an unspecified amount of time then we will warn all investors that other investors may be concerned without any solid concrete proof or bothering to mention the lack of communications or timeframe provided and continue to keep that information away from the investment page."

Again, my issue is not necessarily about the share price itself but the effecte of the message being non-factual hearsay instead of proper facts which are only being distributed after the fact in part and not whole. At what point does "a lot of controversy" merit a reason to spread more controversy? When it is 5 people? 10? Or just the operators belief?

Rumor: "a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth."Hearsay: "something heard from another person : something that you have been told"

The warning meets both of these criteria unless there is a proven fact to back it which was not revealed.

There is no reason for an exchange to partake in the spreading of rumors and hearsay.

Quote

I tried to keep the warning low key. I thought it was fairly self explanatory.

He was placing a warning to users that "There is a lot of controversy over the reliability of the operator of this asset."So does this mean Burnside has proven that Labcoin has failed is unreliable? Or is this his opinion? Or is he just parroting forum users?If he has, why has the asset not been frozen? If he has not, why is he spreading unknown factors/rumors/hearsay?"Because people should know", "Just in case" ? Just in case of what? That's damaging.Spreading unconfirmed rumor discredit's labcoin and it's operators with unproven opinionated slander.

Sure, you could "Labcan has already xxx" Great. That is fine for them to do it. It does not give someone else with authority to do it to them.

Prior to the message, Labcoin posted a signed address and said mining income will begin to arrive there.Also prior to the message, the address did in fact get posted and some coins were deposited at least from Slush.

You can argue all you want about whats in the address and who is sending what but unless Burnside knows for fact that the asset operator is not the mining party and unreliable he should not continue to spread rumors causing additional damaging effects to both the asset, the operator and the investors.

Sure, you can argue poor communications from that point on and prior but that is no different than most of the other asset operators. (Not to mention the Chinese holiday.)Even FriedCat has had little to no forum posting in weeks/months and continues to do what he does with much speculation and controversy of others yet the same warning on the AsicMiner-PT nor does one appear on ActiveMiner, etc.

I'm not saying they're not seriously annoying characters. If they'd just been clear about the issues they were having, not claimed to be hashing and then went weeks without any any proof it's possible that their price would be ~0.005 by now.

Oh well. I sold at 2, made some money shorting the stock using put options and bought back in, so I'm not as pissed off anymore. It's risky, but so far the price is pretty close to what I re-purchased it at.

I'm sure if they scale up to 10Th/s or something crazy over the next few days all will be forgiven.

So does this mean Burnside has proven that Labcoin has failed is unreliable? Or is this his opinion? Or is he just parroting forum users?

I assume his reasoning was not based on rumors about what Labcoin might be doing, but rather on the fact that users reported those rumors and he tried to reach out to Labcoin without success. Keep in mind this is the second attempt - the first one was to provide guidance re share locking.

Let me differentiate: I'm in favor of the warning, but not in the way it was done and providing a proper reason for why it was issued would have been much more solid and smooth.

I am not going to call this an update because it really isn't. I just wanted to say that I have been in touch with Sam and he has promised me that he will post an update today. I fully understand the anger and frustration among share holders (of which I am one) and can unfortunately do nothing but apologize.

I have been wanting to post an update ever since the set timeframe for the pool merge passed, unfortunately I can only relay information I am given by the team and I have been (until this morning) unable to reach the team in China.

There has been several forum members that has sent me PM in the last 24 hours and while some have been very supportive, some others obviously have been very much the opposite. I can honestly say that I absolutely understand anger and frustration and wish there was more I can do.

So does this mean Burnside has proven that Labcoin has failed is unreliable? Or is this his opinion? Or is he just parroting forum users?

I assume his reasoning was not based on rumors about what Labcoin might be doing, but rather on the fact that users reported those rumors and he tried to reach out to Labcoin without success. Keep in mind this is the second attempt - the first one was to provide guidance re share locking.

Let me differentiate: I'm in favor of the warning, but not in the way it was done and providing a proper reason for why it was issued would have been much more solid and smooth.

As for burnside, I think he has overreacted by posting the warning and has potentially affected the long term share price. But again, greed has short memory and once Labcoin starts paying dividends, everything will be forgotten.

If labcoin is unhappy about the warning they should address the concerns and try to get it removed. It shouldn't be difficult. Simply removing it without any followup would imply that the problems have been solved.

I will take ukyo's action as a negative sign of the stock price. Apparently, ukyo is planning to sell his shares, otherwise he either doesn't care the current price or hope it becomes cheaper to increase the holding. We all know ukyo is a 'whale' compared with us regular shareholders, so imagine what will happen when ukyo clear his hold? Kind of scared.